Why the Great Apostasy was never possible: a scenario

[TOmNossor]

curious2no:

Charity, TOm,

I enjoy reading your posts, but I have to wonder if you don’t routinely end up with headaches. You have to twist and turn your ideas so much before they even come close to making sense. And then, you still frequently have to end up with part of your answer resting on supernaturalness (?word) and “feelings” to keep you beliefs.

If you have not read Pope John Paul II’s encylical on Faith and Reason, I encourage you to do so. It is not long and I “know” you would enjoy it.

I think (hope) some day you will “come home” and I believe firmly when you do you will find rest and peace of mind.

In Charity, ToYou.

I think I will read JPII’s encyclical on Faith and Reason. I suspect that I would/will enjoy it and I have not yet read it. Thanks!

I am not sure to what extent I am not at rest or in possession of peace of mind, but often those without something never know what they lack until they find it.

I am also afraid that “to be deep in history” is to embrace a certain amount of necessary “twisting and turning.” To some the explanations I provide, “do more harm than good. One man’s food is another’s poison.”
Many “do not know their religion, and difficulties come upon them afterwards, which they ought to have considered before they” joined. “Faith is a gift of God, and a mere wish or a decision to join the Church is not necessarily faith.”

“I speak of its being a gift of God to believe, to remind you, what it must be right to say, even tho’ you do not need reminding, that you must pray for it. The Apostles said to our Lord, ‘Increase our faith.’ They were not discouraged – they did not go back and fall away because their faith in Him was tried – they did [not] allow themselves to say, ‘Perhaps after all He is not the Christ – why should we attempt to believe Him – but said ‘Increase our faith.’”

I do not believe that I could embrace any form of Christianity without some “twisting and turning.” And I do believe that we always must rely upon faith and prayer. To not do this is to become an atheist or deist.

I place much importance upon reason, but at the end of the day, I still find myself on my knees thanking God for His witness that surpasses (and supplements) reason.

Charity, TOm

 

[curious2no]

Charity, TOm

I believe you are confusing the “twists and turns” of learning new, difficult ideas to the “twists and turns” needed to force fixed endings to fit conflicting knowledge.

Whether it is chemistry, philosophy, theology, or whatever, ideas can be hard to grasp. And as you mention, most people do not take the time or energy to understand the deeper ideas/philosophies of any religion (or topics in general). For those of us who choice to study at deeper levels, it can be daunting and full of twists and turns. Yet, the experiences of grasping a new idea, when all the pieces fit, is so beautiful and powerful. (I’m sure you know this.) It feels like “knowing” just a bit more of who God is. And please, everyone (religious or otherwise) knows the feeling of when the pieces final fit , i.e. make sense - without needing to twist and turn facts. As Thomas Quinas said, “God may go beyond our ability to reason, but he never contradicts it.”

And, ending ones day with faithfulness to God has nothing to do with Mormonism. I would image even agnostics end many days in awe of the world and its wonders. It would be my hope that everyone would.

To respond to this site two times is more than I respond to websites in a years time, so if you respond to this, you will have the last word.

I will continue to read this page and enjoy seeing your thoughts. I’m glad to hear you plain on reading the encyclical. I know you will enjoy it.

Charity, ToYou

 

[banjo]

TOmNossor:

For many years Catholics would tell you that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church and this means what it sounds like. This of course is no longer true.
Charity, TOm

TOm,

There has been no change in the Church’s teaching.
The Catholic Church holds to the claim to have been founded by Christ for the salvation of all. The early Fathers held that salvation cannot be achieved outside the Church. However, at about the same time, another tradition was developing through the recognition of the fact that there were God-fearing people outside the Church. An example of this is the account of Cornelius, “an upright and God-fearing man,” from the Acts of the Apostles. This tradition held that such people who, through no fault of their own, were deprived of the Church were open to salvation although they were not professed Catholics. By the twelfth century it was widely held that a person can be saved if, “some invincible obstacle stands in the way of his baptism and entrance into the Church.” (The Catholic Catechism, John A. Hardon, S.J.) This doctrine was later spoken of by Pope Boniface VIII in 1302, by the Council of Florence in 1442, and by the Council of Trent 1537 which defined the dogma of Baptism of desire. The matter of the two traditions was again addressed at the Second Vatican Council which stated, “it would be impossible for men to be saved if they refused to enter or remain in the Catholic Church, unless they were unaware that her foundation by God through Jesus Christ made it necessary.” (ibid) So, Vatican II did not depart from the traditional teaching of the Church in this matter.

 

[ForeverAdam]

“I do not believe this and neither did Joseph Smith. After reading Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, Joseph Smith commented positively about these folks. He didn’t think they were outside of Christ’s love and influence.”

Believing that someone is not outside of Christ’s love and influence is not equivalent to saying they have experienced salvation. For example, I believe that many Mormons are inside Christ’s love and influence (as is everyone to some degree or another). However, I cannot say they have experienced salvation, because unlike many evangelicals, I believe that baptism is what brings salvation. The LDS believe the same about baptism. Do LDS believe that baptism administered by proper priesthood authority is essential to salvation? Yes. And what would the lack of such an ordinance, properly administered, leave people? Without salvation, properly speaking.

“For many years Catholics would tell you that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church and this means what it sounds like. This of course is no longer true.”

Bl. Pius IX in his encyclical, “Quanto conficiamur moerore”, states:

“It is known to us and to you that those who are in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion, but who observe carefully the natural law, and the precepts graven by God upon the hearts of all men, and who being disposed to obey God lead an honest and upright life, may, aided by the light of divine grace, attain to eternal life; for God who sees clearly, searches and knows the heart, the disposition, the thoughts and intentions of each, in His supreme mercy and goodness by no means permits that anyone suffer eternal punishment, who has not of his own free will fallen into sin.”

and on December 9, 1854 during a papal address, he said:

“We must hold as of the faith, that out of the Apostolic Roman Church there is no salvation; that she is the only ark of safety, and whosoever is not in her perishes in the deluge; we must also, on the other hand, recognize with certainty that those who are invincible in ignorance of the true religion are not guilty for this in the eyes of the Lord. And who would presume to mark out the limits of this ignorance according to the character and diversity of peoples, countries, minds and the rest?”

This teaching has not changed one iota. There is no salvation outside the Church. But to be “outside the Church” you must make a conscious choice to do this either through knowingly embracing heresy, schism, or mortal sin. Without full knowledge of these actions and what they entail you cannot be held guilty of being outside Christ’s Church. But because only God knows people’s hearts, Christ commanded us to spread the Gospel to all people, regardless of our opinion of the state of their soul.

“The answer is that many Catholics in the past and many folks who call themselves Catholics today believe exactly this.”

No Catholic, at any time in Church history, has, or ever will, believe that there has been any time since the establishment of the Church that not one person in the world could experience salvation via God’s grace in the sacrament of baptism. Even those whom the Gospel had not been preached to could still experience salvation via their desire to do all God would have them to do in order to be saved. LDS on the other hand believe that for over 1500 years the way to salvation was not possible (remember LDS believe that baptism is what makes one a Christian, not only faith or good intentions). How that can be called Christianity really surprises me, since the message of Christianity was that people could be born-again throughout Church history.

The LDS could solve this problem, to some degree, if they embraced “baptism by desire” but I think such a belief would make baptism for the dead quite superfluous or end up with a theology of, “you’re saved until the Restoration, but then you’ll have to become really saved.” I find that more than a little awkward and just another way to defend the indefensible viz. the Church that Christ was to get glory out of for all generations would be taken from the earth.

(cont.)

 

[ForeverAdam]

"*As Joseph Smith and I have maintained, there were saintly folks who had salvic views of Christ throughout the apostasy.

Christ never abandoned the saintly folks in the church. The apostasy in my opinion was largely confined to the absence of valid authority not the absence of Christ’s influence on folks who sought Him*."

Well, the LDS believe that baptism is essential for salvation, and not merely, “salvific views.” When your church begins believing that faith is what regenerates other than baptism, I will accept that your view is not refuted by what I originally wrote. Until then I’m forced to conclude that with the lack of proper baptism during the “apostasy” (remember lack of authority means no true sacraments of salvation) means that people were not truly “saved” until the “Restoration, and I can assure that that is not the teaching of the NT.”

In Christ,

Adam

 

[FCEGM]

Newman became a Catholic; and all that “development of doctrine” means in regard to this issue (the Papacy) is that the style of Papal authority developed as the Church itself institutionally developed (from a persecuted underground society to the official religion of the Roman Empire), not that the authority itself did not exist or was not recognized to exist. This is all that Newman argued for. Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp very much DO recognize Papal authority in the way that it was manifested and exercised in their own day and age. To say otherwise is like trying to argue that no Papal authority exists today because Catholic heads of state do not listen to the Pope in the way that medieval heads of state used to. But, the modern Papacy (its modern style of authority) is very different and exercises itself in a different way than the medieval Papacy; and the same was true of the very ancient Papacy, which exercised its authority in a very charitable, Christian way (per the instructions and example of St. Peter himself in 1 Peter 5:1-4), and not in a style of authority that is immediately obvious to secular eyes.

Jesus said it: “He who would be the first among you must become the servant of all.” This is how the early Papacy operated: as a servant. In the early days, the Papacy took this instruction very seriously, and it had the ability to take it seriously because, at the time, the Church was still a persecuted underground society and did not have many (if any at all) secular concerns and responsibilities, which are the root and cause of serious power-plays. It was only after the days of Constantine that struggles over Church authority became really serious (the Novatian schism of the 250’s A.D. being one exception) and so the Papacy was forced to adopt a more secular tone and style in order to maintain the universal Church in unity and orthodoxy.

This is the authentic history and what Cardinal John Henry Newman meant by “development of doctrine” in regard to the Papacy. The Papacy only “developed” because times and conditions “developed,” and it had to adapt to those times and conditions in order to effectively serve the people of God. But, as I said, this in no way means that the Petrine authority of the Papacy was not there from the 1st Century. Rather, it merely manifested itself in a less secular/more Christian and charitable style. And, if you appreciate this historical fact (and stop trying to impose a 16th Century Protestant concept of what a “Pope” is on 1st Century people), you can immediately see it.

For example, writing to the Corinthians, Clement of Rome says:

“Owing, dear brethren, to the sudden and successive calamitous events which have befallen us (i.e., the persecutions), we feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting which you consulted us; and especially to that shameful and detestable sedition, utterly abhorrent to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-confident persons have kindled to such a pitch of frenzy, that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be universally loved, has suffered grievous injury.” (1 Clement Ch. 1)

Notice how it was the Corinthians who appealed to Rome - just as the early church of Antioch appealed to the Apostles at Jerusalem for a solution to their problems in Acts 15:2. But, why so in this case since there were no living Apostles in Rome? Indeed, why didn’t the Corinthians of this time appeal to nearby Ephesus (as they did in the days of Paul: 1 Cor. 7:1 & 16:8), where the Apostle John was still alive and presiding?

This fact is documented by St. Ireneaus, who writes:

“Then, again, the church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the Apostles.” (Ireneaus, Against the Heresies, Book III, Chapter III, 180 A.D.).

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

The Emperor Trajan reigned from A.D. 98 until A.D. 117; therefore, the Apostle John was indeed presiding in nearby Ephesus when the Corinthians appealed to St. Clement at Rome. So, what was so special about Rome that gave it the authority to settle such disputes? - and to do so even during a time of persecution?

Also, in his quote above, Clement speaks of Rome “turning its attention” to the problems of Corinth, thus implying that Rome routinely instructed the other churches; and he also praises the faith of the Corinthians in a “universal” context - a context he could only invoke if Rome had universal jurisdiction. Clement continues:

“Your schism has subverted [the faith of] many, has discouraged many, has given rise to doubt in many, and has caused grief to us all. And still your sedition continueth.” (1 Clement Ch. XLVI)

Here, Clement speaks on behalf of the universal Church in condemning the Corinthian schism. He goes on:

“Ye, therefore, who laid the foundation of this sedition, submit yourselves to the presbyters, and receive correction so as to repent, bending the knees of your hearts. Learn to be subject, laying aside the proud and arrogant self-confidence of your tongue.” (1 Clement, Ch. LVII)

Here, without question, Clement gives a direct command, ordering the trouble-makers to submit to the local Corinthian presbyters. Why does he have the authority to do this? Why should they listen to him when they won’t even listen to their own presbyters? Indeed, consider the historical situation here: This is the second-generation Church; who then had ordained the presbyters of Corinth? It was the Apostles themselves, was it not? - the same Apostles who ordained Clement to be one of the presbyters of Rome. So, if the trouble-makers in Cornith refused to listen to their own Apostle-appointed presbyters, what makes Clement a superior authority?

Also, what about St. Ignatius of Antioch (107 A.D.), who speaks to the Roman church and says:

“You have never envied anyone, you have taught others. Now I desire that those things may be confirmed, which in your instructions you enjoin [on others].” (Ignatius to the Romans, Chap. III)

Coming from the other side of the known world (Antioch in Syria), St. Ignatius is familiar with Rome’s teaching authority. Why is that? Perhaps it’s because Ignatius also says that Rome “presides in the chief place” and how it “presides in love” (Ignatius to the Romans, Ch. I). Here, Ignatius uses the Greek word prokatheemai, which is defined as an authoritative, jurisdictional position; and this is the meaning of the word “presides” whenever Ignatius uses it (e.g. Ignatius’ Epistle to the Magnesians 6:1).

The same is true of St. Polycarp who, at the age of 85 years old, traveled from Symrna (in modern Turkey) to Rome in order to represent the churches of Asia Minor and to explain to the Romans why their local Asian date for celebrating Easter (the feast of the Lord’s Resurrection) differed from that of Rome and the rest of the universal Church. In this, it is true that Polycarp stood firm for his own, Asian tradition which came from the Apostle John; and Rome (in the person of Pope Anicetus) respected this and conceded the point to Polycarp. Yet, why did Polycarp have to go to Rome at all? And at the age of 85 yet?! Polycarp was the disciple of an Apostle - John himself. No one in Rome at the time could claim to be the direct disciple of an Apostle, so why didn’t Anicetus or his Roman associates travel to see Polycarp in Smyrna or meet him in Ephesus (the capital of Asia and the metropolitan church there, to which Smyrna answered)? Rather, this remarkably old man had to set out on a journey from which he might never return in order to accomodate Roman authority. This is of course obvious to anyone who reads the history honestly and without anti-Papal bias.

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

Indeed, as St. Ireneaus, Polycarp’s own disciple, describes the event (writing to Pope Victor of Rome):

"On the contrary, those presbyters who preceded thee (i.e., the earlier Bishop’s of Rome), and who did not observe [this custom], sent the Eucharist to those of other dioceses who did observe it. And when the blessed Polycarp was sojourning in Rome in the time of Anicetus, although a slight controversy had arisen among them as to certain other points, they were at once well inclined towards each other [with regard to the matter in hand], not willing that any quarrel should arise between them upon this head. For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp to forego the observance [in his own way], inasmuch as these things had been always [so] observed by John the disciple of our Lord, and
by other Apostles with whom he had been conversant; nor, on the other hand, could Polycarp succeed in persuading Anicetus to keep [the observance in his way], for he maintained that he was bound to adhere to the usage of the presbyters who preceded him (i.e, the earlier Bishop’s of Rome, going back to Peter). And in this state of affairs they held fellowship with each other; and Anicetus conceded to Polycarp in the Church the celebration of the Eucharist, by way of showing him respect; so that they parted in peace one from the other, maintaining peace with the whole Church, both those who did observe [this custom] and those who did not. (Ireneaus, Epistle of Ireneaus to Pope Victor)

Here, again, we see the Roman Pope exercising his authority, not in a secular way, but in a charitable, Christian way. He does not press the point with Polycarp (a point that Polycarp, at age 85, traveled 1000 miles to defend!). Rather, Anicetus endorses the Asian tradition because it came from John and other Eastern Apostles. He then “concedes” to Polycarp the celebration of the Eucharist among them …in order to show respect for this disciples of John. But, why would Anicetus have to “concede” anything to Polycarp if he (Anicetus) was not the one in charge - the one in authority? Why also, again, did Polycarp have to go to Anicetus …at the age of 85??

Indeed, the same person who records the events above, Ireneaus of Lyon, who was a disciple of Polycarp, ALSO writes in regard to Rome’s authority, and says:

"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every church should agree with this church (Rome), on account of its PREEMINENT AUTHORITY that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. The blessed Apostles (Peter & Paul), then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed Apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the Apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their Traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the Apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the Tradition which it had lately received from the Apostles … To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the Apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical Tradition from the Apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying Faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the Apostles until now, and handed down in truth.” (Ireneaus Against the Heresies, Chap III)

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

So, Ireneaus (Polycarp’s own disciple and a native of Polycarp’s own Asian church) speaks of Rome’s preeminent authority because of its succession from both Peter and Paul. THIS is why Polycarp, at the age of 85, traveled all the way from Smyrna to Rome - to account to this authority and to reconcile it with the authority that his own church received from John, for, as Ireneaus says, “…it is a matter of necessity that every church agree with this church” - that is, Rome. Polycarp understood this and was making sure that the Easter controversy was not a point of doctrinal contention between the churches. That’s why he traveled to Rome. Or should we say that Polycarp and his disciple Ireneaus believed different things?

Also in his statement above, Ireneaus speaks of Clement’s epistle to the Corinthians being a “powerful” manifestation of Rome’s “preeminent authority.” So, again, would Polycarp disagree with this? Clearly, as we’ve already seen above, Ignatius of Antioch would not, since he speaks of how Rome “teaches others”, that is, other churches and how it does this because it “presides in love”, the same “presiding love” from which Peter merits her authority over the sheep in John 21:15-19 (e.g. “Simon, do you love me? …tend my sheep”).

Also above, Ireneaus cites Pope Anicetus (who met with Polycarp), again in the context of citing Rome’s “preeminent authority.” So, again, would Polycarp have disagreed with Ireneaus?

Ireneaus then mentions Anicetus’ successor at Rome, that is, Pope Soter. Of this Pope Soter, we have the statement of Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, who (in c. 170 A.D.) writes to him and says:

“Today we kept the Holy Day, the Lord’s Day (Sunday), and on it we read your letter (Pope Soter’s epistle). And we shall ever have it with us to give us instruction, even as the former one written through Clement.” (Dionysius Epistle to Pope Soter in Eusebius)

So, here, we not only see the church of Corinth taking instruction from the church of Rome, but we see that the Corinthians had a long-standing tradition of taking such instruction - still retaining the epistle of St. Clement, which was sent to them some 80 years before. And, Dionysius continues to address the Roman bishop, saying:

“You have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time.” (Dionysius Epistle to Pope Soter of Rome 25:8 in Eusebius).

Dionysius compares the teaching of Pope Soter to that of Peter and Paul. And, he continues:

"For from the beginning, it has been your custom to do good to all the brethren in various ways and to send contributions to all the churches in every city . . . This custom your blessed bishop, Soter, has not only preserved, but is out-doing, by furnishing an abundance of supplies to the saints, and by urging with consoling words, as a loving father his children, the brethren who are journeying. (Dionysius, Letter to Pope Soter in Eusebius’ Church History 4:23:9 [A.D. 170])

Dionysius refers to the bishop of Rome as a “father” (i.e., root of the word “Pope”), speaking of the Christians in every city as his “children,” whom he “urges,” “consoles,” and provides for. Shades of the statement made by St. Ignatius of Antioch two generations before - how Rome “teaches” other churches, etc. Indeed, Dionysius says that this has been the custom of the Roman church “from the beginning.”

However, you would have us believe that such a view of Roman primacy is unknown to the very men who attest to it in their early patristic witness.

Please allow me to issue a little challenge. Throughout early patristic literature we see case after case of the church of Rome issuing teachings and authoritative instructions to other city-churches. In this, it is quite clear that Rome taught Corinth (e.g. 1 Clement and Dionysius to Soter), and Antioch (Ignatius to the Romans; Felix on Paul of Samosata, etc.),. and Ephesus (Victor to Polycrates) and Smyrna (Polycarp and Anicetus), and Alexandria (Dionysius to Sixtus), and Carthage (Stephen and Cornelius to Cyprian), and all the other major city-churches. But, can you cite ANY case in which another (supposedly “equal”) bishop or city-church provided teaching and instruction to the church of Rome? That is, when the church of Rome received teaching and instruction, rather than issuing it? Clearly, Ignatius’ Epistle to the Romans offers no teaching or instruction as found all throughout Ignatius’ other epistles (e.g. To the Ephesians, to the Smyrneans, etc.). This failure on the part of St. Ignatius (an associate of the Apostles) to teach or instruct the Romans speaks VERY loudly. Nor can we cite any other Church father offering teaching or instruction to the Roman church. Why do you suppose that is?

 

[TOmNossor]

Boppysbud and ForeverAdam,

First it should be noted, as I think ForeverAdam did, that the two of you disagree. It seems Adam is aware of many of the things that LDS point to as having been restored by Joseph Smith.

Usually when I look to things “restored” I look preferentially to those folks that were considered orthodox Christians during (and usually after) their life by the church that survived. While I would suggest that as one who does not align with the emerged orthodoxy AND as one who looks at history without demanding that the soon to emerge orthodoxy is divinely guided, I do not need to only look at these things. However when one broadens ones views the problem of there being so many different beliefs, as Adam mentioned, becomes a real issue. It is interesting that when one narrows their view like I suggest I usually do it is generally the esoteric (secretive) components of the restoration that cease to have explicit ancient roots. Of course with much hand waving LDS can show that esoteric rites and teachings existed in orthodox circles, seemingly in response to Gnostic groups these were desecretized or vanished, and this leaves the orthodox Christians as ones who perhaps engaged in such things.

Concerning deification, yes, there is plenty of references for this. The only ancient source I have been able to find concerning creating new worlds is actually Jewish, but I do not think the aspects of “eternal increase” are presented authoritatively in any case. In my study the only place were my LDS views of deification differ from those of the ECF is associated with our pre-deification connection with God. As creation ex nihilo took hold of the church (not only is creation ex materia got ancient witness, but it was the prevailing view before the mid-2nd century revolution) the radical otherness of God was emphasized and eventually men ceased to be the literal sons and daughters of God. Most of the explicit references to deification in the ECF are presented by folks who also embrace this radical otherness.

cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

On the 19th century roots of Joseph Smith’s teachings, this has in fact been a path increasingly tread by non-LDS critics of the CoJCoLDS. I have generally three responses to this.

The first mirrors Adam’s inclusion of all the non-restored heresies in the early church. The CoJCoLDS was born among thousands of different ideas. Many of the more likely accretions were rejected in favor of little things that critics of the CoJCoLDS originally thought could only be the product of a truly deranged mind. One can trace the history of the critics and see that many things once openly ridiculed are now being explained away instead of totally dismissed. A fraud who desired to bring to himself fame could have surely chosen an easier path than did Joseph.

Second, the material pointed too as sources for the BOM, BOA, D&C, and Joseph Smith’s teachings is rapidly becoming something the best universities would envy. I do not think it makes sense to suggest that Joseph Smith was unintelligent, but he absolutely was unlearned. At one time or another most of Joseph’s early witnesses spoke against Joseph, but none reported how he had studied his way to prophethood (and all maintained the truth of the BOM). In fact, the prevalence of the scholar Joseph view is a recent phenomena. A scholar recently commented that as of late our critics speak of Joseph with loftier terms than we do, calling him “genious” and …

Lastly, I point to the convergence upon LDS ideas by non-LDS. As mentioned above Joseph’s ideas have been criticized as ridiculous (the product of an ignorant mad man). Later they have been explained away as resulting from his environment and genius. But most interesting of all is that some of these same ideas are now finding their way into non-LDS Christianity. I cannot elaborate upon this too much, but I can mention one of the more interesting Catholic examples. What is properly called “extreme untion” and regularly called “last rites” during Vatican II was directed much closer to the LDS practice of “blessing the sick.”

ForeverAdam:

Also, we don’t find in the early Church the belief that God has a wife who, together, are literally the parents of our spirits, that we will become Gods and Goddesses of our own planet, a rejection of the Real Presence and the Mass,

I would disagree a little here.

That God is literally our Father is not un-defendable from early sources.

That the Real Presence was universally and unequivocally maintained by all ECF is also not true (although the evidence is universal enough that those who do not embrace it must explain rather than the Catholic explaining IMO).

And finally evidence for the belief in the existence of the divine female / divine feminine is seeing a huge increase. Margaret Barker (whose work does a lot to lay the foundation of Lehi’s Jerusalem too) has shown a number of aspects of Heavenly Mother, primarily in 1st Temple Cult Judaism but also in the ECFs. She I believe and other I am sure, have actually suggested that Marian devotion is in some ways a development from past acknowledgement of Heavenly Mother. BTW, nothing in the binding teachings of the CoJCoLDS demands that there is a Heavenly Mother. President Hinckley said that it makes sense to him that if there is a Heavenly Father then their would be a Heavenly Mother, but I would suggest that if there is a Heavenly Mother, She is not placed before us for some reason (perhaps to protect Her from blasphemy).

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

honeybear:

Christ is God, Tom.

The first 3-4 times I read this, I thought you were effectively saying, “God is good.” “God love you.” Or … This being said not to further disagree with anything I said.

If this is correct then my only response is, “I agree!”

If this is not correct then my response is, “I agree!”

Since I assume you disagree with my characterization of you as following God solely because “hell is hot,” hopefully we can agree that I do not follow God so I can have astronomical power after I die. And we can also recognize that I believe, “Christ is God.”

Our concepts of the Trinity are not as far apart as you might expect.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

curious2no:

Charity, TOm

I believe you are confusing the “twists and turns” of learning new, difficult ideas to the “twists and turns” needed to force fixed endings to fit conflicting knowledge.

Whether it is chemistry, philosophy, theology, or whatever, ideas can be hard to grasp. And as you mention, most people do not take the time or energy to understand the deeper ideas/philosophies of any religion (or topics in general). For those of us who choice to study at deeper levels, it can be daunting and full of twists and turns. Yet, the experiences of grasping a new idea, when all the pieces fit, is so beautiful and powerful. (I’m sure you know this.) It feels like “knowing” just a bit more of who God is. And please, everyone (religious or otherwise) knows the feeling of when the pieces final fit , i.e. make sense - without needing to twist and turn facts. As Thomas Quinas said, “God may go beyond our ability to reason, but he never contradicts it.”

And, ending ones day with faithfulness to God has nothing to do with Mormonism. I would image even agnostics end many days in awe of the world and its wonders. It would be my hope that everyone would.

To respond to this site two times is more than I respond to websites in a years time, so if you respond to this, you will have the last word.

I will continue to read this page and enjoy seeing your thoughts. I’m glad to hear you plain on reading the encyclical. I know you will enjoy it.

Charity, ToYou

I truly believe that you interact because you are concerned about me. I find this to be wonderful.

I have found where God desires me to follow Him, so I no longer ask, “Is the Church true?”

But, I have found great truth within the Catholic Church and I am regularly lifted up as I study what Catholics believe. I also desire to always be in a place were God can call to me. I no longer question if the church is true, but I always ask to be lead by God.

Anyway, I suppose you see the “twists and turns” I must make to be a LDS differently than the “twists and turns” you must make to be a Catholic. This is good because you are a Catholic. God Bless!

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Wholesale CHANGE? Being charitable or being Catholic, I would say no.

Many Catholics were quite concerned about a number of things that happened during Vatican II. Many Catholics were quite concerned about Papal Infallibility at Vatican I. Originally many conservative Catholics found Newman’s Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine offensive and un-Catholic.

The other thing that is part of my view of the Catholic Church is that one of the most vocal Catholics I know IRL is an SSPX Catholic who seems to me to be on the Ultra-trad side of the SSPX even. I know I would be a very conservative Catholic as a Catholic, but as of know I do not think I would align myself with the SSPX. I think it possible that the SSPX is performing a service for the Catholic Church (especially in the United States) as a foil to the modernists, but our local arch-bishop has called for Catholics not to align with the SSPX and that would weigh heavy on my mind were I Catholic.

In any case, the Catholic Church has developed. Many pre-Newman Catholics and a few modern Catholics feel that to develop doctrinally is to pervert. Even among those who seem to be fine with Newman’s ideas there are some who still have a problem with Vatican II. And any Catholic that does not have any problems with some of what can be observed in the United States (and I presume elsewhere) is not “deep in history” IMO.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

"I do not believe this and neither did Joseph Smith. After reading Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, Joseph Smith commented positively about these folks. He didn’t think they were outside of Christ’s love and influence

."

Believing that someone is not outside of Christ’s love and influence is not equivalent to saying they have experienced salvation. For example, I believe that many Mormons are inside Christ’s love and influence (as is everyone to some degree or another). However, I cannot say they have experienced salvation, because unlike many evangelicals, I believe that baptism is what brings salvation. The LDS believe the same about baptism. Do LDS believe that baptism administered by proper priesthood authority is essential to salvation? Yes. And what would the lack of such an ordinance, properly administered, leave people? Without salvation, properly speaking.

When you boil down Catholic teachings to their core you cannot say that Baptism (meaning in this life and with water) is necessary for salvation. The Baptism of Desire and the Baptism of Blood are not water Baptism like the Clementine Recognitions advocated.

When you boil down LDS teachings to their core you also cannot say that Baptism (in this life and with water) is necessary for salvation. From the first few years of the restoration the CoJCoLDS has maintained that proxy-Baptism was salvic. The practice of administering all ordinances by proxy demands that this is no “lesser” salvation that is made available.

Whether Joseph Smith invented it or not, the answer to what happens to those who die without valid Baptism has been part of the CoJCoLDS from the beginning. The Catholic Church took a long time to develop these ideas, the final step being the dogmatic definition of what “Outside the Catholic Church”

Your quotes of Pius IX are confusing the change/development associated with “salvation outside the Catholic Church” with the idea of “invincible ignorance” which has some early roots (earlier than Pius IX even, but I will get there). These are not the same and should not be confused. After Vatican II those who have real faith in Christ, have receive Christian Baptism, and … but are not in communion with the Pope may be part of the Catholic Church even though visibly they seem to not be part of the Catholic Church. In addition to this, Jews and Moslems may also be part of the Catholic Church. If you read Lumen Gentium you can see that first non-Catholic Christians are included in the Church, then Jews and Moslems, and next the “invincibly ignorant.” Your words seem to include the “invincibly ignorant” in the first two groups and this is not in accordance with the words or intent of Vatican II. Many Vatican II protestors have no problem with “invincible ignorance,” but do have a problem with redefining “outside the Catholic Church.”

If you read Lumen Gentium and still disagree with me, I defer to you the right to define what the Catholic Church believes, but for me this will be a problem.

Back to “Invincible Ignorance:” To my knowledge St. Thomas Aquinas provides one of the best explanation of “Invincible Ignorance.” Before him there are words here and there. I believe the bulk of Augustine’s testimony is that those who are “Invincibly Ignorant” are merely the non-elect and this is fine (although Augustine wrote quite a bit and I do not presume to have read it all nor be an expert). In any case, I would suggest the concept of “invincible ignorance” developed as theologians asked, “What will come of those who never heart of Christ?” This development occurred much before Vatican II.

cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

(remember LDS believe that baptism is what makes one a Christian, not only faith or good intentions). How that can be called Christianity really surprises me, since the message of Christianity was that people could be born-again throughout Church history.

The LDS could solve this problem, to some degree, if they embraced “baptism by desire” but I think such a belief would make baptism for the dead quite superfluous or end up with a theology of, “you’re saved until the Restoration, but then you’ll have to become really saved.”

You are absolutely mistaken. Joseph Smith maintained that proper authority was necessary for Baptism. But he also said:
Joseph Smith:

If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way. Do you believe in Jesus Christ and the Gospel of salvation which he revealed? So do I. Christians should cease wrangling and contending with each other, and cultivate the principles of union and friendship in their midst; and they will do it before the millennium can be ushered in and Christ takes possession of His kingdom.

These are not the words of one who believe that his non-LDS Christian brothers and sisters were hell bound.

Baptism of Desire is not mentioned in the Bible. It does not jive with the teachings of the early church. It was originally postulated to account for those who decided to come into communion with the church but died before baptism not for those who never heard of the church.

Baptism for the Dead on the other hand is mentioned in the Bible. This verse has resulted in over 40 different possible explanations, but the CoJCoLDS’s is among the most clear and straight forward.

Sanctification and Justification are associated with how one interacts with the light and knowledge they receive. Ordinances are important in an ultimate sense in that they will be preformed for all men and women. Ordinances and alignment with the Church is important in that it is the highest/best/most effective path to return to God. But nobody is denied water baptism or the opportunity to come to Christ.

I have long felt that Baptism for the Dead was a much better solution to this problem then Baptism of Desire. I still do.

ForeverAdam:

Well, the LDS believe that baptism is essential for salvation, and not merely, “salvific views.” When your church begins believing that faith is what regenerates other than baptism, I will accept that your view is not refuted by what I originally wrote. Until then I’m forced to conclude that with the lack of proper baptism during the “apostasy” (remember lack of authority means no true sacraments of salvation) means that people were not truly “saved” until the "Restoration, and I can assure that that is not

the teaching of the NT."

Baptism is essential for salvation, yes. But salvation is predicated upon what one becomes (through faith and following Christ) in this life (this is pretty clear in the Bible and LDS have regular spoken of “no second chances,” but all will receive a “fair and just opportunity”). The proxy ordinances are then accepted by “those who would have accepted them had they received a fair and just opportunity.”

The NT is part of LDS scriptures and one of the standard works that define our binding doctrine. I agree that salvation was not unavailable for all those who lived until the restoration (or all those who die having never heard of Christ). With the words of Joseph Smith I have provided you, the proxy ordinances that you know are part of our religion, and my explanation as to how this all fits together, I do not understand why you feel LDS doctrine is not in alignment with the New Testament in this area.

It is not phenomenally important that you see how the CoJCoLDS aligns well with the Bible and the rest of the standard works (you are Catholic), but I have yet to find an irreconcilable difficulty (and this one isn’t even an issue in my book).

Charity, TOm

 

[ForeverAdam]

"*I would disagree a little here.

That God is literally our Father is not un-defendable from early sources*."

I haven’t seen any evidence from the ECF, to date, that suggests that God had relations with his wife to produce our spirits. The closest connection I’ve seen to this theme is in Jewish Kabbalah, which contains the belief that the supposed androgynous God, Hokhmah (male) and Binah (female), give birth to our spirits. However, Kabbalah is the Jewish mystical, or “occult” tradition, and is not a source for Christian doctrine, per se. Interestingly enough, Smith was associated with a Jew who was studious in Kabbalah, Alexander Neibaur, in the early 1840s the same time that the teaching or emphasis on a “Heavenly Mother” began to take shape (Smith was supposed to have spoke about this topic to several of his plural wives during the 1840s).

The only “heavenly Mother” that Catholics have had to do with is The Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of the Savior and our Mother. To give the Protestants apoplexy and the Mormons dreams of apostasy, one of the titles for Mary that we use (very rarely, but still there nonetheless) is “Bride of the Father.” However, be rest assured that this is based on her work with the Father for the salvation of souls and their nourishment and not some primordial marriage and creative union.

I’m aware of Margaret Barker’s work. She goes a long way in showing that the Eucharistic beliefs of the Church (particularly, the Sacrifice of the Mass) are perfect fulfillments of the original OT model. As for the connection to a “Heavenly Mother” - I suspect it was a type of the Blessed Mother, just as the Jewish emphasis on the anthropomorphic features of God was a type of the Incarnation.

“That the Real Presence was universally and unequivocally maintained by all ECF is also not true”

I understand that Protestants make this charge, but I don’t think it holds up. For example, St. Augustine is often said to have denied the Real Presence because he advocated an allegorical interpretation (as one view of many) of John 6. However, Augustine also said:

“The Sacrifice of our times is the Body and Blood of the Priest Himself . . . Recognize then in the Bread what hung upon the tree; in the chalice what flowed from His side.”

(Sermo iii. 1-2)

and

“Thou art the Priest, Thou the Victim, Thou the Offerer, Thou the Offering”. (speaking of the Holy Eucharist)

(Enarr. 1, 6 on Ps. 44), vol. 3, p. 66 of Jurgen’s, “The Faith of the Early Fathers”

These quotes show that Augustine believed that scripture verses have more than one meaning/interpretation (no problem there), but he never exalted the allegorical interpretation *at the expense * of the Eucharistic one.

You may have been referring to other Church fathers, but I’m guessing Augustine was included somewhere.

In Christ,

Adam

 

[TOmNossor]

banjo:

TOm,

I’m not sure what you consider the “first few centuries,” but we do have the following quotes which I think help narrow the window on when the bishop of Rome was recognized as having an authority not enjoyed by other bishops.
St. Irenaeus of Lyons (born in the first half of the second century and a priest at Lyons in 177) wrote of the Church of Rome, “For with this Church, all other churches must bring themselves into line, on account of its superior authority.”
Philip Hughes, A Popular History of the Catholic Church (Macmillan 1953) p.8.
St. Cyprian in the third century stated, “To be in communion with the bishop of Rome is to be in communion with the Catholic Church.” Alan Schreck,* A Compact History of the Catholic Church*(Servant, 1987), p. 19.

God bless you on your journey,

I had read but forgotten about your note until I was reading what Francis wrote. Sorry.

Yes, I believe Irenaeus is the first solid step towards establishing the primacy of Rome. And there is not doubt that this is pretty early. I will try to say a little more in responding to Frances.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Frances,

Please forgive me if I do not respond in detail to everything you said. If I miss anything you think is really important, please highlight that for me if you like.

Newman said what you said with this phrase that has always stuck in my mind, “Love dispenses with laws.” In the early church there were few folks that asked, what can I get away with and still be in communion with my bishop, with the church, with God? But as time passed people began to implicitly ask such things.

I believe that the authority of Rome would have and should have stepped in during some of the earlier controversies. Even as a Catholic I do not think I could believe that Clement and some of his successors KNEW they were at the head of the church. As a Catholic, I would see that the Peterine authority was placed with them, but until it was absolutely necessary to prevent the church from being torn apart it was neither exercised nor realized.

As a non-Catholic it seems to me the stressors on the church that did not evoke the Peterine authority were not less important than the stressors that resulted in the development of the Peterine authority. In fact, the great schism reflects directly upon the Papal authority and whether it is prime?

I have responded to your Clement and Ignatius quotes in post #6 of this thread. In addition to this I provide a number of things said by Clement and Ignatius that show they did not recognize the Roman authority.

Irenaeus is the earliest statement that I believe really begins to point at Roman primacy. Irenaeus’ writings still witness that he is mostly concern with Apostolic routes not specifically Peterine Apostolic roots. In fact early apologists often pointed to the primacy of Rome due to its double Apostolic foundations, frequently listing said foundation as Paul and Peter (perhaps because Paul was there first and longer, perhaps because Antioch was established by Peter before Rome). There are some interesting wranglings provided by some Protestants concerning this quote from Irenaeus, but I have not followed them to closely. Only a decade removed from this FIRST message of the primacy of Rome, Tertullian (while still fully in communion with the church before becoming a Montanist) calls linking Rome’s authority to Peter’s “usurpation.” I agree with Tertullian and suggest that he was there to see the beginning of this.

That being said, Newman would suggest Tertullian was just wrong and he did not recognize the validity of the developing authority. The conflicts within the Catholic Church have frequently had intelligent well informed folks on the wrong side of the battle. If the Holy Spirit guards the deposit of faith, this is not outside of what is expected.

I explained why Corinth would appeal to Rome earlier in this message (assuming they ONLY appealed to Rome).

One thing I may not have mentioned previously is that Rome was regularly seen as an upright church. It was many years before it was seen as prime though, and never by Eastern Christians. There are a number of political reasons why Rome would emerge as prime. There was even a political time when appeals seemed to go to Milan more than Rome. It is not impossible that Roman importance (first among equals) was accepted largely due to political maneuvering. Primacy was then guaranteed when the Eastern church schismed. Of course I would not suggest Newman’s ideas were impossible either.
cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

FCEGM:

Please allow me to issue a little challenge. Throughout early patristic literature we see case after case of the church of Rome issuing teachings and authoritative instructions to other city-churches. In this, it is quite clear that

Rome taught Corinth (e.g. 1 Clement and Dionysius to Soter), and Antioch (Ignatius to the Romans; Felix on Paul of Samosata, etc.),. and Ephesus (Victor to Polycrates) and Smyrna (Polycarp and Anicetus), and Alexandria (Dionysius to Sixtus), and Carthage (Stephen and Cornelius to Cyprian), and all the other major city-churches. But, can you cite ANY case in which another (supposedly “equal”) bishop or city-church provided teaching and instruction to the church of Rome? That is, when the church of Rome received teaching and instruction, rather than issuing it? Clearly, Ignatius’ Epistle to the Romans offers no teaching or instruction as found all throughout Ignatius’ other epistles (e.g. To the Ephesians, to the Smyrneans, etc.). This failure on the part of St. Ignatius (an associate of the Apostles) to teach or instruct the Romans speaks VERY loudly. Nor can we cite any other Church father offering teaching or instruction to the Roman church. Why do you suppose that is?

Why does some of what you suggest seem to be true?

• Rome was a very important See founded by Paul and Peter.
• Ignatius came to Rome as the political center to die and the political center was part of Rome’s importance (also, at least one ECF mentioned the martyrdom of Ignatius when they explained why Rome was important right beside either Peter or Paul’s martyrdom in Rome).
• Politically Rome emerged as a leader in the West, but at least 3 places in the East competed for the leadership of the church. Sometimes this meant that the Metropolitan/Patriarch who could get Rome on his side would prevail. Eventually this meant that the Eastern Church schismed and Rome was left as the clear authority.

Where do I see flaws in what you suggest?

Ignatius did not delineate the flaws in the Roman Church when he wrote them because unlike the other cities / city churches to which he wrote, Ignatius had never been to Rome.

Still Ignatius tells the Roman church that he does not “issue commandments” to them as Peter and Paul do. Not because the Roman church is an authority, but because Ignatius is “not an Apostle” like Peter and Paul. Ignatius still does instruct the Roman church not to interfere with his martyrdom.

Even in the examples you list there are times when others council Rome. Cyprian told Rome that authority was required to baptize and that those “dipped” by heretics must be rebaptized. He maintained in alignment with dozens of bishops at two local councils that this was the tradition. Rome (St. Stephen) appealed to the practice of heretics, claiming that they established tradition and tradition was not what St. Cyprian claimed. St. Cyprian never yielded to what he considered to be faulty reasoning. The Saint died with a belief that would be declared anathema during Trent.

As you mentioned Polycarp and others counseled the Roman church on the celebration of Easter. There views prevailed.

Popes taught heretical views that were not accepted, bringing into question why did folks refuse to receive the counsel of Rome and why was this counsel not always orthodox.

One of the weaker positions on the council of Nicea is that it was somehow led by the Roman representative (who was not the Bishop of Rome) may Catholic scholars recognize this as merely wishful thinking on the part of Roman primacy advocates. Rome likely had little to do with the first post apostolic Ecumenical Council other than being probably the most important non-attendee.

Charity, TOm